Sunday, May 29, 2011

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 29, 2011

Putative President Barack Obama’s enablers are out and about making their straw man arguments in order to win the presidential eligibility issue. “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

In arguing that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen, his defenders maintain that the “birthers” are wrong in believing otherwise because there is no requirement that one’s parents must be born in the U.S. to be a "natural born Citizen." This is a straw man argument given that it suggests that this is the “birthers’” argument when in fact it is not. This is not the only straw man argument that we have seen Obama’s enablers advance. We have seen their effort to win the Obama eligibility issue by misrepresenting the constitutional argument (e.g., they argue that a “natural born citizen” is the same as a “citizen” and then they set out to show what historically a “citizen” is and publicly concentrate on the place of birth issue but suppress from the same public the constitutional argument on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen”); they present for public display “birthers” who may defend the constitutional position poorly as best defenders of that position; they invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then ridiculed and criticized (they have invented the “birther” who they attack as being a racists and/or attached to nothing but conspiracy theories or in the words of Obama himself: "We're not going to solve our problems if we get distracted by carnival barkers and sideshows." [Barack Obama, April 27, 2011, in reference to Donald Trump]); and they oversimplify our constitutional position and attack that position (e.g. they mock the “birthers” for saying that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents and add that a simple facial reading of the Constitution’s text contains no such requirement). They also use the slippery slope fallacy, saying that there is no reason for Obama to release any medical or other evidence proving his Hawaiian birth because the “birthers” will never be satisfied with no matter how much documentary evidence of his alleged Hawaiian birth Obama may present to the public. None of this is even to mention the unfounded charges of racism and other and various ad hominem attacks against anyone who would dare question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be President.

Now let us see how Obama’s enablers’ statement that the “birthers” put forth the argument that the President’s parents must be born in the United States is nothing but a straw man argument. First, we do not maintain that the parents need to be American born. Rather, we maintain that they must be "citizens of the United States," which status they can acquire by being "natural born Citizens" or naturalized at birth or after birth. The parents must be “citizens of the United States,” under any one of three scenarios: (1) “natural born Citizens” under Article II by being born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents; (2) naturalized at birth, under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) by being born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents or other Congressional Acts by being born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents; or (3) naturalized after birth under some Congressional Act or treaty when born out of the U.S. to two alien parents.

Second, these same individuals also confuse an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a "born citizen" under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which as currently interpreted do not require U.S. citizen parents in order declare one a “citizen of the United States” at birth. This latter citizen, lacking the natural quality of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, is actually naturalized at birth by way of Congressional naturalization power at first questionably exercised by Congress through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then unquestionably exercised by it through the 14th Amendment. Today, we commonly refer to this citizen as a “native-born citizen,” not to be confused with a “native” under natural law and the law of nations which has the same meaning as a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, to be an Article II "natural born citizen," one must be born in the U.S. (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).See also the many other legal and historical sources cited at this blog site for support for this definition. The Founders and Framers wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep foreign influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. These birth circumstances assure that the President and Commander of our military cannot be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and has sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents). Only the President and Vice-President have to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." The great majority of Americans are “natural born Citizens.” For every other citizen in the U.S. who is not a “natural born Citizen,” the clause has no constitutional or other legal effect, for “citizens of the United States” all enjoy equality in rights, privileges, and immunities. Hence, the clause is in place only to protect the United States and its people by assuring that our representative constitutional republic will be lead by a President and Commander in Chief who from birth is attached to the best interests and only that of the United States.

Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He maintains that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii in 1961. But he has yet to conclusively establish that fact with a valid long-form Certificate of Live Birth or with any medical evidence. Rather, on April 27, 2011, after refusing to do so for over 2 ½ years and spending or causing to be spent countless millions of dollars of public and private funds and resources and even the 6-month imprisonment of a decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, he released on the internet a forged internet image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. This computer image is a forgery, as it contains evidence of electronic manipulation. Even if the internet image is a true representation of the alleged underlying Certificate of Live Birth, that underlying paper birth certificate, which is supposed to be a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961, is a forgery, for it contains evidence of kerning (a technique of spacing letters next to each other for aesthetic purposes) which cannot possibly be done on a typewriter in 1961. Also, there exist significant questions regarding whether Obama is using a valid social security number and whether his selective service military registration was also forged.

In any event, assuming the released birth certificate image to be valid, it conclusively establishes that Obama’s legitimate father was Barack Obama Sr. So, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he can be a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but he cannot be a “natural born” “citizen of the United States” under Article II. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born in 1961 to Barack Obama Sr., a British citizen father who was born in 1934 or 1936 in the then-British colony of Kenya and by descent from his father he himself was born a British citizen. He was therefore born with conflicting and divided loyalties to the U.S. and Great Britain, which under the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, converted to citizenship and allegiance to Kenya at age 2 which lasted until at least age 23. Consequently, Obama, was naturalized at birth and, like a person who is naturalized after birth is not eligible to be President, was not born with sole and undivided allegiance to the U.S. Obama is thus not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

41
comments:

@ 169 US 652, Wong Kim Ark (WKA) was born and reared in one permanent residence in California, “and never lost nor changed that residence."

Obama lost his US residence in Hawaii and had it changed to Indonesia. Ann Dunham Soetoro's August 13, 1968 US passport application / emendation swears to this.

@ 169 US 652 – 653 “neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.”

The mother signed under oath on the back page of Form FS-299 of 7-64.

Following the instructions:"I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state... made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state....

{If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person included in the passport or documentation, the portion of which applies should be struck out , and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.}

Ann Dunham wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, and the document stood to apply all relevant passages that could apply to a 7 year old who lost US Citizenship by naturalization to Indonesia,( a NON-CONVENTION nation per the US Dept. of State), doing so with a renunciation of his allegiance and renunciation of his citizenship by both he and his mother and his step-father for him.

@ 169 US 654,653, 704-705 the Court specified that 14th Amendment Section 1's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that he had to permanently have a US Residence and domicile to the age of 21. No permanent US Residence every year of his life to age 21, no 14th Amendment qualification. His mama's August 13, 1968 form FS-299 of 7-64 denounces Obama as having no US Citizenship, No US Residence, and No Allegiance in 1968. Thus, it is impossible to use WKA, 169 US 649 (1898) to label Obama anything other than ILLEGAL to the US Presidency.

Regardless of the nonsense put forth by Obama's enablers, the truth remains.

We need to make sure that the election officials of every state are aware that the correct and only defensible definition of "Natural Born Citizen" - one born in the country under its complete jurisdiction to two citizen parents - is becoming more well known and understood daily.

We also need to let these officials know that awareness of Obama's forged documents, SSN fraud, and other felonious activities is also spreading exponentially.

Then, we need to ask these election officials, party chairmen and secretaries of state, to consider their personal liability should they knowingly submit or accept fraudulent documentation or allow placement of any candidate on the ballot who is clearly not qualified. How is that not fraud?

Finally, we need to back track to the 2008 election and see what can be done to hold those election officials liable.

Obama's citizenship, let alone Art II natural born citizenship status is a cause de novo. It would be a mistake for the courts to rely on precedent, for dicta in case law from Minor to Lynch are in conflict.

An originalist interpretation would deny Obama natural born citizenship if the judge considered Vattel's 'Law of Nations," § 212, John Jay's letter to G. Washington, and the historical necessity of denying a son of a British loyalist eligibility to the presidency just because he was born on U.S. soil.

According to USC 1101 and the 1948 British Nationality Act, Obama was born a British subject, but the abandonment of the father required U.S. statute to take over by Obama's 12th month of infancy.

Dunham's marriage to Lolo Soetoro, plus her legal residency in Indonesia made her, and Obama, Jr., Indonesian citizens. A liberal U.S. court may accept dual nationality as a "convenience," (see Terrazas), however U.S. naturalization law would have recognized only Obama's Indonesian citizenship, as Mr. Apuzzo correctly states, at age 23, IF OBAMA HAD NOT ESTABLISHED FIVE YEARS OF CONTINUOUS U.S. RESIDENCY BETWEEN THE AGES OF 14 AND 23.

Unfortunately, J. Gray in Wong Kim Ark did NOT abide by existing law, and the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, and CREATED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A NATIVE BORN CITIZEN OF ALIEN PARENTS.

If J. Gray was an honest judge, he would have allowed Ark the opportunity to apply for naturalization as an adult, being that his parents did not choose to naturalize while he was a minor.

"Ann Dunham wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen"

Generally small children are included on their mother's passport and do not have an individual passport. Stanley Ann's amendment to her passport was to remove BHO(S) from her passport. He would have needed an individual passport to travel internationally. There is no indication whether Mr. Obama was then issued a US passport.

Stanley Ann attempted to enter Hawaii with her son with an expired passport. There is no notation about the status nor type of her son's passport. Perhaps she have left in a hurry, and didn't have time to obtain a proper US passport in Indonesia.

Lynch v. Clark (1844) is only a state law case on inheritance rights in New York. It does not control on the constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Julia Lynch was born in New York in 1819 to alien parents during their temporary sojourn in New York City. She returned with them to Ireland the same year and never came back to America. The common law in New York at that time was that aliens could not inherit land in New York. Hence, if Julia was an alien she could not inherit any such land. If she was a citizen, she could.

The court's statement about Lynch being eligible to be President is super dicta. Can you imagine a case about whether somebody who only lived in the U.S. less than one year of the first year of her life can inherit a piece of property in New York and then the court goes on to say without any analysis that she is eligible to be President of the United States. The court must have had a lot of political anger to make such an outlandish statement. As I have argued before, Lynch was as dishonest in explaining away the U.S. Supreme Court case of Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) as it was in explaining away the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. On Inglis, the court cited the minority opinion of Justice Story which the majority of the Court (which included Chief Justice Marshall) rejected. Justice Story in the minority said that under English common law jus soli, a child born in New York to British parents was an American citizen. The majority rejected that notion. It said that if the child was born in New York to alien parents, he was an alien. We can see that the English common law rule was not the majority rule but Lynch mislead us all on that.

Lynch also mislead and went beyond its authority on the early Naturalization Acts. Those acts clearly state that any child born to alien parents must naturalize, either derivatively through the parents if before the age of majority or on his or her own if done thereafter. The rule did not take into consideration the child’s place of birth which means that it did not matter that the child was born in the U.S. If the child's parents were aliens, so was the child. Lynch totally disregarded the plain language of these federal binding statutes (the law of the land) and actually changed them to suit its own agenda when it said that Congress had been over-inclusive in including in the reach of the statutes children born in the United States.

By the way, please note that both Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (2009) cite the tortured Lynch case as authority for their decisions.

You are also correct that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark created a new type of citizen out of "whole cloth." Again, under federal statutes, any child born in the U.S. to alien parents was an alien. Also, in 1898 there existed Congressional Acts and treaties which did not allow Wong (the child of Chinese nationals) to be a U.S. citizen. Justice Gray like Lynch disregarded the plain language of these statutes and treaties and created a "born" citizen of a child born in the U.S. to alien parents who as I have repeatedly argued was not intended by the Wong Kim Ark Court to be a "natural born Citizen" but rather only a 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States." Justice Gray accomplished his goal by telling us that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant simply being subject to the laws of the United States which is absurd given that its meaning was supposed to be the same as “not subject to any foreign power” and that any one born here, except for the children of diplomats and foreign armies, are so subject the moment they are born. Hence, Justice Gray’s interpretation rendered the jurisdiction clause, which is the heart of the citizenship provision, superfluous.

This is the quality of justice that we get from our courts when they engage in politics rather than in dispensing justice.

I believe Justice Story may have opined on jus soli, but his commentaries on the constitution reveal his recognizing jus sanguinis as the legal principle governing our laws.

Note, that I prefaced my comment by saying that current court cases relying on precedent is dishonest and biased because cases such as Minor and Lynch are in conflict, as are Perkins v Elg and the Liakakos case.

Jus Solis is a feudal concept 'born' in medieval times where all that issued forth from the land, the waters; from seed and womb within the dominion of a Lord, belonged to that Lord. Rights and privileges were not a birthright, but at the discretion of that Lord.

Solis is, therefore, in conflict with the concept of a free citizen of a republic.

Commander Charles Kerchner has reported that Dr. Jerome Corsi did not include the Kerchner v. Obama case in his book, Where's the Birth Certificate. I find that hard to believe given the great contribution that that case has made in pursuing the Obama eligibility issue and in understanding what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

I represented the plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, an action filed against Obama, Congress, Cheney, and Pelosi, regarding Obama's lack of eligibility to be President. The case was the only one of its kind in the whole nation because it was filed after Obama became the President-Elect and before he was sworn in as President. Hence, it was filed when the political process had exhausted its course. It is also the only case filed in the nation to claim, among the many unique legal theories raised in the case including violations of the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, and equal protection under the law also under the 5th Amendment, that Congress violated its 20th Amendment constitutional duty to the plaintiffs to adequately protect them by failing to properly vet and assure that Obama was in fact an Article II "natural born Citizen." I argued that plaintiffs for sure suffered and continued to suffer an injury to these constitutional rights by having to live under a person who had assumed the great and singular powers of the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Military and who had not shown himself to be eligible to be President and who in any event, was not eligible to be President and the Commander of the military because he was not an Article II "natural born Citizen." I showed how the government's paramount duty to its citizens is to protect them and that the "natural born Citizen" clause is a national security protection to which my clients were entitled and that in default of the government (Congress and the Executive) providing that protection, they had every right to seek redress in the courts to protect themselves.

The case was first hear in the New Jersey Federal District Court and reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009). Never reaching the merits of the questions of whether Obama conclusively proved that he was born in Hawaii or that he meets the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen, the District Court dismissed the case because of standing and political question. I appealed the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit, also not reaching the merits of the case, affirmed the lower court, saying the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing. I then filed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which Court, again not reaching the merits, denied the application. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the writ is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010).

In short, no court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner case in which I argued that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii and that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" because when he was born he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. In my briefs to the courts, I cited all the pertinent U.S. Supreme Court case law, Emer de Vattel, and many other historical sources which you will also find discussed by me on this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com.

Finally, we cannot forget the tireless effort made by Commander Kerchner to educate America on Obama's lack of eligibility to be President through his Washington Times Weekly ads.

I read his chapter in 'Where's the Birth Certificate' on the legal considerations, and I was also disappointed that he made light work of the heavy lifting. He has a simple approach in his interviews as well.

Corsi agrees, and is frustrated, that judges have corrupted our naturalization law, realizing he is a long way from convincing a public weaned on 'soil citizenship at birth' from birth, so to speak.

I have a long e-mail from Rep. McCotter, relying on Judge Surrick in the Berg case (pre-election) and soil birthright. I had faxed 77 congressmen, twice, begging two of them to have the courage to file a Title 3, Sec 15 challenge to the Jan 6, 2009 Certification of Electoral Votes, applying the same standard of review used to vet Sen McCain.

There is no . . . ZERO . . . jus solis citizenship in U.S. legislated Act from Mar-1790 onward . . . the judges forced it upon us.

"this state has the duty of self-preservation and the taking of necessary measures to cooperate with the federal government in the preservation of the peace and safety of the state of Arizona and in order to carry out article II, section 21 of the Arizona Constitution relating to free and equal elections and article VII, section 12 of the Arizona Constitution relating to the enactment of laws to secure the purity of elections"http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00805.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

"in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States and this state"

"In the United States and in this state those individuals who knowingly and wilfully participate in the world Communist movement, when they so participate, in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States and this state,"http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00805.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

"The Communist organization in the United States and in the several states, pursuing its stated objectives, the recent successes of Communist methods in other countries and the nature and control of the world Communist movement itself, present a clear and present danger to the security of the government of the United States, the governments of the several states and the government of the state of Arizona, including its political subdivisions, that make it necessary that the state of Arizona enact appropriate legislation, recognizing the existence of such worldwide Communist conspiracy, and designed to prevent it from accomplishing its purposes in this state and its political subdivisions."http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00805.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

Here is appropriate statute, Title 8 U.S.C. 1424 of the Aliens and Nationality Act. The Act bans visas and immigration status to any nationality, group, or sect that “advocates or teaches . . . opposition to all organized government; or who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; . . . any other totalitarian party of the United States; of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party.”

Unfortunately, the Judiciary has allowed this law to be abrogated, and I cite Schneiderman vs. The United States' citing Tutun. This case is particularly interesting for through it the court clearly defines its Art III jurisdiction over Naturalization Law, in direct competition and opposition to congressional plenary power enumerated in Art I, Sec 8.

@ Puzo1

Have you read 'Where's the Birth Certificate?'

He has not cited Berg, or Kerchner yet . . . but so far his explanation of Natural Born Citizenship has had only two minor errors, not bad for a layman. He really spends a great deal of the book on the subject.

Actually the Kerchner et al case does get some mention in Jerry's book but not nearly the description one would hope since it is, Constitutionally, the most meaty of all the various actions vs. Barky.

He mentions Apuzzo 6 or 7 times (most as an individual and not involving the action by name, oddly enough) and Kerchner 4 times in relation to the Kerchner et al action. One of the "Apuzzo" mentions was aout Mario's very fine nbC essay.

Sadly enough he does not give the case itself and write-up as done with Phil Berg efforts. I suspect he hadn't done the due diligence of actually reading the Kerchner et al pleadings - to his detriment, I think.

Despite that gaping lack, the book is very good in covering most of the bases. I'll be curious to see if the promistd FBI fraud action comes about and what Buddy-Boy Holder will do to sidetrack it. I'm not sure Corsi fully understands how "in the tank" both the Executive AND the Judicial Branches are for Barky (not to even mention the Legislative and that other dumb-assed branch with the leg tingles and personal viewing of the "real" BC!!

With respect to jus soli -- children of American citizens born overseas prior to 1855 were considered 'aliens.'

Horace Binney wrote a scholarly legal essay which brought this matter to the national attention, because in the era of steamships, more American were living abroad, and their children were suddenly required to reside for 14 years on American soil, before they could become 'naturalized citizens!'

This was a great shock for many of them, Horace Binney's own grandson being one of them.

He entitled his essay 'Alienegenae,' and his arguments are central to the fact that Congress already concluded (Vattel notwithstanding)that children born to American parents serving in the military are 'naturalized citizens,' and NOT 'natural born citizens,' because an American base overseas is 'not American soil,' and that continues to be the law as it stands today. Children born to American parents on Okinawa, for example, are 'naturalized citizens.'

Therefore, John Sydney McCain has always been a 'naturalized citizen' of the United States, and never a 'natural born citizen,' which applies only to children born to American parents on U.S. soil.

Anything less, is not a 'natural born citizen,' but rather an Aricle I 'naturalized citizen,' or a 14th Amendment 'native-born citizen.'

By the way -- my great uncle was born in 1890 -- and he served in France during World War I, but he was never a 'naturalized citizen' until the Calvin Coolidge administration, because he was a full-blooded Cherokee, born in North Carolina.

He was considered to have been born 'not' under the jurisdiction of the United States,' even though he was born on American soil and in a local hospital in Asheville, North Carolina.

The 14th Amendment was written in such a way that it would not make citizens of 'native Americans.'

He was building sky-scrapers in the Loop in Chicago, when he married by great aunt.

I Post the information about Lucas Smith here because of the Kenyan BC issue.Update on Lucas Smith:CHARGE 13-3842 FUG. PIMA COUNTY,AZ.

The Superior Court reference cites

13-3842. Fugitives from justice; duty of governor

Subject to the provisions of this article, the provisions of the Constitution of the United States controlling, and any and all acts of Congress enacted in pursuance thereof, it is the duty of the governor of this state to have arrested and delivered up to the executive authority of any other state of the United States any person charged in that state with treason, felony, or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in this state.

I received an email today from someone saying that "On May 26th, just 6 days ago, the House passed legislation granting UNLIMITED WORLD-WIDE WAR POWERS to the president (who appears to be a dictator more and more every day), to conduct wars anywhere in the world for any reason. Obama has threatened to veto the bill because it DOES NOT GRANT HIM ENOUGH POWER!"

Listen to this YouTube video in which Rep. Ron Paul says that "[t]he last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes. . . . And now the final nail is placed in the coffin of Congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President—a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic. In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed—unless these recent trends are quickly reversed."

I guess what the ACLU is up in arms about is Section 1034 of the text, which reads as follows:

***********

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

**********

Mario, forgive me, but I don't understand what the fuss is about. I'm just a dumb hick from the sticks, but I thought this is what we WANT to do.

Of course this would be something that the ACLU does NOT want us to do.

And since Ron Paul is a Libertarian in this instance he is siding with the ACLU.

Section 1099 is fun reading.

BTW Orly Taitz got a response in TAITZ v ASTRUE this past week - basically says because she didn't present the social security numbers in the right way as to avoid infringement on privacy, he's not responding to the complaint. Or, that's how I read. it. Posted on www.pacer.gov.

The amendment would strike section 1034 from the underlying bill. Section 1034 states Congress affirmation that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, and that ﻿ the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban.

Thanks for investigating this matter and sharing with us your information. Since the matter involves giving military power to an usurper and given that a Representative complained about it, it is worth looking into.

On Taitz, she needs to refile her papers under seal or with redacted Social Security numbers.

"Lis Wiehl legal analyst for Fox News who slammed Lakin and sides with Bill O'Reilly on every "birther" issues while providing some derisive commentary...well...she began her career as a lawyer for the law firm of Perkins Coie!!!!"

Although on a bit of a different subject, I'd urge everyone to write/contact their Congressmen as well as any newspapers that have Letters to the Editor sections and/or radio/TV stations to ask why they do not have coverage of the submission to the FBI by Donald Vogt of the criminal complaint about Obama's document fraud - the White House Birth Certificate.

Should the FBI investigate this submission (made in both Honolulu and DC), it would be a VERY quick way to solidly prove Barkey is not a nbC if Kapiolani does not have an exactly matching real BC on file. After that the HI DOH could be investigated (but Barkey would already be in deep doo-doo).

The FBI will do nothing without a reasonable amount of pressure being brought to bear ... so here's your chance to genuinely help your country!! Howsabout some help for Doug in kicking off the investigation???

I just read an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled, Founding Fathers versus 'birthers' -- smackdown!http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/06/founding-fathers-versus-birthers-smackdown.html

I tried to post the following response to the article but the web site said that it could not accept my information. Here is my response:

Mr. Morrison is a bit confused.

There have been plenty of eligibility contests in our history which he does not include or incorrectly characterizes (e.g. the McCain contest) in his article.

A "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Minor v. Happersett (1875).

Any other U.S. citizen who is not a "natural born Citizen" is just a "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, Congressional Acts, or treaties. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

If Obama was born in Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father who were domiciled in Hawaii, he is a "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a). Wong Kim Ark. But since he was not born to a U.S. citizen father, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Minor.

Dr. Frankstein created Obama's April 27, 2011 long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

A retired typographer who worked in the industry for 50 years has analyzed the Obama April 27, 2011 alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. He concludes that the document contains different typewriter typeface letters which come from a number of different typewriters. Paul Irey, an expert in typefaces and typography, concludes that the forger(s) used different pieces of actual 1961 valid birth certificates from Hawaii to create the Obama birth certifificate. The problem for Obama is that the different typewriter letters which come from different typewriters prove that the document is a forgery, for a valid birth certificate would not contain typeface letters created by so many different typewriters.

"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.

The anlaysis is presented by Jerome Corsi in his WND article which can be accessed at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397

I wonder why Irey did not comment on the kerning that exists in the Obama released alleged birth certificate. Again, kerning is a way to type letters in such a way as to space them together so they look better. With letters extending into each other's vertical space, kerning cannot be done on a 1961-era typewriter which is what a clerk at Kapi'olani Hospital would have used to fill in the requested information on a valid pre-printed form of a 1961 birth certificate.

Again, where is the FBI and Congress who need to be doing a full-blown investigation of this serious crime which presents a serious security threat not only for the United States but for the entire world.

As one can see (in the following) the SCOTUS recognizes 'native' citizen attained by birth in a place, and 'natural' citizen attained by citizenship status of parents.

'native' and 'natural' have different legal meanings.

U.S. Supreme CourtPerkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Perkins v. Elg

No. 454

Argued February 3, 1939

Decided May 29, 1939*

307 U.S. 325Quote:"Although there is no express provision in the law of the United States giving election of citizenship in such cases, this department has always held in such circumstances that, if a child is born of foreign parents in the United States, and is taken during minority to the country of his parents, such child upon arriving of age, or within a reasonable time thereafter, must make election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage."

The framers of USC Article II chose NATURAL born for eligibility for POTUS.

Here is an example (one of a myriad), that shows that the SCOTUS held that those born in US were legally called ‘native-born citizen’.

“Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as “the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen.”

“Despite these dicta, it is clear that particularly in the past but currently as well a naturalized citizen has been and is subject to requirements not imposed on native-born citizens.”http://supreme.justia.com/search.py?query=native&Search=Search+Cases

Now if it were the (absurd) case that the SCOTUS considered them to be ‘natural born’ based on being ‘native-born’, then don’t you think SCOTUS would have used the term ‘natural’?

Ergo: according to SCOTUS dicta, ‘native citizen’ does not mean ‘natural born’

This may help you to understand, where SCOTUS in dicta held that the ‘native born citizens of the United States’ just that ‘native born’ & were NOT referred to as ‘natural born’.

W. McCreery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph McCreery, a native of Ireland, who is still living and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane McCreery, and Isabella McCreery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.”

So how come SCOTUS didn’t use the term ‘natural born’?

Answers: because native means of the land and natural means of the parent, Ralph was Irish & not naturalized a US citizen, therefore his daughters were only ‘native born’ and not ‘natural born’.

because SCOTUS were conversant with Lord Coke- Calvin’s case where it was held that if the parent wasn’t a subject, then the child could not be a natural born subject.

There is a proliferation of similar instances in SCOTUS cases where this can be seen.http://supreme.justia.com/search.py?query=native&Search=Search+Cases

I find no naturalization papers for his father George Romney who was born in Mexico to parents who were expatriated missionaries in Mexico.

The Mormons left to escape the US government threats, then passage of two severe laws against polygamy. They were losing or had lost their citizens’ rights to vote, sit on juries, etc. The final legislation banning polygamy and assessing severe sanctions in the 1880s made committed polygamy a crime and while the legislation OFFERED THE EXPATRIATES IN MEXICO a legal way back, all those who were married prior to 1864, (and George W. Romney’s father was), he could have chosen to repatriate with all benefits of American citizenship.

He declined and died in Mexico in 1906 or 1907, never returning, never giving up Mexican citizenship.

It appears from all that I could find the parents had to become Mexican citizens in order to remain there on their mission for decades.

When George Romney moved back to the states as a born Mexican citizen he did not naturalize.

That leads me to believe he was not even a citizen of the USA much less natural-born.

That indicates Mitt Romney is in the same boat as Barack Obama?

If Romney is elected to replace Obama have we now compounded the situation?

George Romney, the former Gov of MI, was a Citizen of the United States, not a natural born Citizen, but a Citizen. There is no question of that. Under U.S. laws, Mexican laws, and international law, George Romney was a citizen of the United States. Mexican law did not grant julis soli citizenship to the mormons born while living there. To gain Mexican Citizenship you had to be born of Mexican parents. His parents never renounced their U.S. Citizenship nor did they lose it. Thus George Romney was born to two Citizen parents in Mexico and was a Citizen of the United States at birth. Again, he was not a natural born Citizen of the United States at birth since he was not born in the USA to two Citizen parents. There was never any question raised as to whether George Romney was a citizen of the USA. He was elected Gov of MI being a citizen of the USA, which is a requirement of that office. Only questions as to whether he was a natural born Citizen and eligible to be President which is one of the reasons he withdrew his candidacy for President. And thus … since Mitt was born in the USA to a citizen father and mother he is a natural born Citizen of the United States.

History to my knowledge says that George W. Romney was a U.S. citizen. No one in the U.S. government to my knowledge ever challenged that George W. Romney was a basic Citizen of the United States. He is not declared to be an alien in any U.S. census records, such as the 1920 and the 1930. The 1940 is not available yet. George Romney served as a Governor which requires U.S. citizenship ... and he traveled the world, I assume on a U.S. passport. The documentary evidence at this point in my hands is the U.S. census records. Copies of his U.S. passport records could be obtained via a FOIA to prove the U.S. government accepted that he was a U.S. Citizen. Note: I did not say George W. Romney was a natural born Citizen of the USA but simply was a "citizen" of the USA.

I am open to new real documentary evidence. If you have a document that says proves or implies otherwise as to his basic Citizenship status, i.e., that George W. Romney was not even a U.S. Citizen, please provide a copy via a link to it so we may analyze it.

Here is what I have found and been told. I might have more if I can find it. The geneology of the Romney and Pratt families is complecated at best.

In my research this is what I ended up with as far as names, dates and locations. (Document link below)

I can provide a more clear picture of the who sired who, when and where plus links where it was found if necessary.

I am comfortable with the date accuracy.

It is intrepretation of the law that I question.

The Edmunds Act of 1882 which reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act stripped polygamists of their rights to vote, serve on jury or hold office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

Miles Park Romeny born in Illinois - Hannah Hood Hill born in Canada (5 wives) (fled to Mexico in 1887 and died there in 1904)

Parents to Gaskell Romney born in Utah (father of George W. Romeny born in Mexico)

Helaman Pratt born in Iowa – Anna Johanna Dorothea Wilcken born in Prussia (3 wives)(fled to Mexico (1875 – 1878??) died there in 1909

Parents to Anna Amelia Pratt born in Utah (wife of Gaskell Romney mother of George W. Romney)

Gaskkell and his family lived in Mexico (where George W. Romney was born) for 17 years until the Mexican Revolution broke out.

2300 Mormon women and children were allowed free passage back to the states and some of the male family members joined them later.

Did not these Mormon families lose their citizenship with the Edmunds Act?

Did they not lose citizenship since they CHOSE TO REMAIN in Mexico for 17 to 30 years or so?

I was told “The operative immigration law of nations at the time, each government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates as a matter of being put into delicate situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This procedure was operative when the Mormons fled Utah, the standard being that if an American stayed (at the time the accepted time frame was) 5 or so years, each country would consider they had rejected their native country’s citizenship.”

“Since the family was in Mexico, depending on the story, 1870′s or 80′s, the USA would have considered them Mexican and Mexico would have too, on that account.”

“Since Mexican law severely restricted foreign ownership of territory and since Romney’s own family genealogy reports they bought land w/Mexico’s approval, then if this, then that of it concludes that they were Mexican citizens, free to own land and also, do their missionary work.”

"Did not these Mormon families lose their citizenship with the Edmunds Act?

Did they not lose citizenship since they CHOSE TO REMAIN in Mexico for 17 to 30 years or so?"

No they did not in the instant case of George Romney's case. George Romney gained his U.S. Citizenship from from his father via "Jus Sanginis" and thus when he returned to the U.S. he was a U.S. Citizen and did not have to naturalize, etc.

A person can be stripped of their voting rights and other rights and privileges and duties of Citizenship and not lose their Citizenship. I happens all the time when people are sent to prison for a felony. They can no longer vote in many jurisdictions, for example.

George Romney WAS a basic simple Citizen of the United States vis his father under jus sanguinis and thus legally could re-enter the U.S. without naturalization. That fact was recognized by all U.S. law and authority. George became a governor which required U.S. Citizenship for that office. And since George Romney was a U.S. Citizen and his wife was a U.S. Citizen, Mitt Romney is the children of citizens of the United States, born in the United States, and is thus a "natural born Citizen of the United States".

Why don't you focus on other Repub candidates such as Rubio, Jindal, Santorum, and Niki Haley of SC. You will have richer fodder to work with in challenging their eligibility.

Romney, love him or hate him, is clearly a child of U.S. citizens born in the USA and thus a natural born Citizen.

Another thing to remember is that prior to I think 1922 the citizenship of the father was controlling. The wife automatically acquired the citizenship of the husband as did the child acquire the citizenship of the father. So it does you no good to pursue the maternal line of George Romney's ancestry. For you to win your quest to prove Mitt Romney is not a natural born Citizen of the United States, you would have to prove that George Romney's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen when George Romney was born, which was long prior to 1922. If George Romney was born a Citizen of the United States via "jus sanguinis" from his dad, and he was, then Mitt Romney is clearly a natural born citizen of the United States and constitutionally is eligible to be the Pres.

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.